The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to fulfill contractual obligations can constitute cheating under Section 415 IPC if it causes harm to the other party.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.125 of 2015 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.B. Crime No.125 of 2015 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.)

Common Order:

These petitions have been filed to call for the records in Crime No.125 of 2015, pending investigation on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same.

2. First Information Report in Crime No.125 of 2015, came to be registered on the basis of complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 417, 418, 420, 427, 477 IPC r/w Section 120b and 34 IPC by the second respondent.

3. The allegations made in the complaint, in brief are as follows:

3(i). Second respondent is an entrepreneur and a member of several professional and social organizations. He was introduced to third and fourth accused/petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.11172/2015 through a common friend. They requested the second respondent to assist them in conducting OSA.No.185/2001 pending before the High Court of Madras in respect of property bearing No.8, Malony Road, T.Nagar, Chennai, to an extent of 6 grounds and 2200 square feet house site building. Second respondent followed up the matter through legal counsel and the case was allowed in favour of accused 3 and 4. Accused 3 and 4 desirous of disposing the property since they were permanently settled in Secunderabad. They executed two separate Power of Attorney Deeds on 23.09.2009 in favour of second respondent, including the power to enter into sale agreements and sell the property.

3(ii). Accused 1 and 2 are the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.17268/2015. First accused approached the second respondent and expressed interest in purchasing the property for Rs.12,25,00,000/-. A sale agreement dated 07.11.2009 was entered into between the first accused and the second respondent. Meanwhile, the relatives of third and fourth accused filed SLP No.32635 of 2009, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, challenging the order passed in OSA No.185/2001. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an interim order against the creation of any third party interest till final disposal. A supplemental sale agreement dated 14.10.2010 was entered into between second respondent and the first accused. Third and fourth accused directed the second respondent to get the legal/incidental expenses from first accused independent of the sale consideration. Upon direction of third and fourth accused, first accused agreed to pay money to the second respondent for expenses and remuneration for his services.

3(iii). In view of the change of circumstances, because of pendency of matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a sale agreement dated 19.10.2010 was executed between the second respondent and the first accused, in continuation of the earlier sale agreement dated 07.11.2009. As per the agreement dated 19.10.2010, a sum of Rs.4 crores was independent of the sale consideration payable to the third and fourth accused. First accused paid a sum of Rs.1.25 crores to meet immediate legal expenses and agreed to pay Rs.2.75 crores at the time of registration of the sale deed. While so, with an ill motive of deceiving the second respondent and acting upon the instruction of the first and second accused, third and fourth accused revoked the Power of Attorney Deed executed in favour of second respondent and executed a sale deed in favour of the second accused on 01.10.2014. It was an act done only with an intention to deceive and cheat the second respondent. All the accused acting with common object of deceiving, cheating and defrauding the petitioners hatched a conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the second respondent and gained at his expense. Second respondent suffer